Rather than constantly increasing the time for every crime committed, I wish legislators would determine the approriate punishment and stick with it, rather than jacking up the time served everytime some screams,"Won't someone please think of the children."
What I find incredible is that this business of locking people in cages obviously doesn't work*, yet we continue to use this. Isn't insanity defined something like "doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results"? If the system worked, the US would have among the lowest crime rate anywhere... I don't specifically have answers as to what to do, but I have heard of non-jail-type-stuff like where criminals meet with their victims and such. While I don't know if it's effective, or if there are better solutions, I just think we're crazy to keep going down this lock-people-up path, when the results are so obviously lacking...
*I define a working corrections system not as punishment system - we can do that easily enough with a big stick, applied frequently and liberally. I am, however interested in making people into contributing members of society, so they add value instead of chewing up resources...
Wasn't blaming the vendor, just pointing out that unless you are in the extraordinarily unlikely position of having a business that lines up 100% with the vendors "best practices" installing the software is the cheap and easy part. 'Cause after that, you get to either customise the software or re-write your current busines processes. Typically it's a little from column-A and a little from column-B.
So! The point was that depending on how much or how little you pick (in total!) from both columns it may well have been cheaper to simply write an ERP that exactly matches your current business and be done with it...
My team of 12 (internal employees, not consultants) can have a freshly installed system (takes me 1 day to install) configured in under a month. You couldn't write a product in any language or tool with the same number of people in under 2 years. And even then, it would be cripped compared to SAP's ERP product.
Oh yeah? well, my team of one can have a freshly installed system (takes me 1 day to install) configured in less than a week. Of course then the organisation spends 3+yrs fighting over business process and we bring in 100+/- consultants to converge the existing business with the ERPs implementation.
two points: the "bunch of uneducated ragheads" are willing (in fact honored) to die for their cause: Are you? Is the average american? The current 'losing' situation isn't so much a loss as a failure to win - i.e. stalemate. Vietnam changed how war is fought. And unless you are willing to commit genocide, the US will never win a war in the way that the (for example) 1st and 2nd world wars were 'won' (i.e.: the other side signed surrender after sustaining sufficient losses.) Vietnam changed the rules of battle, and your "bunch of uneducated ragheads" are never going to sign surrender... specifically because some well educated puppet masters keep pulling their strings.
Climbing the fence is a crime in progress unless the individual happens to own the property. Making a larger than usual payment on a loan is not a crime. In order for this analogy to work making the payment would have to normally be a crime.
Actually, for this analogy to work it'd have to be a crime to pay someone else's bill...
It is always legal for me to climb my own fence.
An officer seeing someone climbing a fence can request that you prove your identity; and upon determining that the property is yours can wander on his merry way. There is no question from the officer that you might have come into possession of this fence illegally!
So, by analogy, if I move money from my bank account to my ABC Credit Card they can easily determine that I'm the owner of both accounts. Since moving my money between my accounts is not illegal they can fsk! right off. And note that all this can be done in milliseconds, requires no holds and requires no one to actually review the transaction. The best part is that since the bank keeps a record of this transaction it's always up for review if they have a real reason to look at your finances.
This (again!) reminds me of the whole people who encrypt their data must be hiding something from the government, and so they must be criminals argument again...
Besides all this, mass monitoring isn't a very good way to go...
You *know* that some law like this had to be on the books to try to minimally enforce filing requirements.
If you don't like it, don't try to deposit all at once. Problem solved.
So this is a law that "catches" stupid criminals (and only once!) and regular law abiding people who don't want to do paperwork (who does?)
Serious organised criminals won't ever get caught because... well, they hire accountants and whatnot.
And we waste tax dollars enforcing this? I'm curious just how often the work results in finding real illigal activity, where this was the only way they were going to get caught?
It boggles my mind that you couldn't instantly see this problem with B&L's thesis if you
actually read the paper
Well... it boggles mine that you've actually read their paper and don't agree with it: especially if this
article is the best critique of it you could find. If their theory is fucking clownshoes there should be
ample contrary evidence. And the reason doctrine of first sale works is because of scarcity. At the end of the
day, everyone is constrained by resources. The argument is that there is a cost in copying something, and if
the cost of simply buying it is greater than the (perceived) cost of copying then it will be sold. Couple
examples: there is a growing number of people who buy from iTunes, not because it's cheaper than downloading
fom p2p, and not because it's legal, but because it's easier. They would rather simply go to a web-site, pay
the buck and get the song. Second example: I just downloaded, printed and bound Against Intellectual
Monopoly and decided that when the final version became available I'd buy it rather than do that
again...what a pain in the ass...
But regardles, let's see what Romer says:
[Romer] agrees that property rights for intellectual goods are sometimes too strong; in some
cases, society might benefit from weaker restrictions.
So even Romer thinks the current system is somestimes too much protection. Let's get to his arguments:
First of all, the property rights Boldrin and Levine would assign to innovators "would truly be
an empty promise," said Romer. In their model, if a pharmaceutical firm discovers a new compound, it can sell
the first pills but not restrict their downstream use. A generic drug manufacturer could then buy one pill,
analyze it and start stamping out copies.
This is patently false and somewhat alarmist. First of all, passing any given pill through a machine that
tells you what is in it, doesn't tell you how it was made. The formula for Coca Cola is, what? like a hundered
years old, and survives without exact copy despite not being protected by any law. Secondly, this process
does take time and money, during which time the original inventor is busy selling their drug.
Thirdly, the companies that want to simply imitate (as opposed to innovate) will never make siginificant
impact. They also have limited resources, and are going to go after the successful drugs, correct? Well, that
means that they have to wait to see which drugs are selling well before they can start to perform their
analysis. This does two things: it further increases the time during which the original inventor has a
monopoly, and it means that they already made money -- it was a high selling innovation (in this case drug).
They quote estimates between 2-5 years as the lead time that a drug company will have by simply using trade
secret. So from the next paragraph where Romer says "this conclusion is unrealistic if everyone who buys a
pill can copy it." is false, I can't copy the pill, no matter how many I buy: I lack the chemistry
education and the machines necessary to do this. So we're talking about scarcity...
Next:
it's false to say that there is no distinction between the idea and its physical instantiation.
A formula must be written down, but the formula is far more valuable than the piece of paper on which it's
written. In a large market, the formula could be so valuable that "the cost of the extra paper is trivial--so
small that it is a reasonable approximation to neglect it entirely."
When I buy a CD, it don't assume the plastic is worth $10-$20... so what's his point? If the formula to a drug
is worth millions, don't sell it on a piece of paper for the value of the paper...sell it as a pill. Going back
to music, the 'cost' of downloading is essentially zero. Yet Apple has still sold a billion songs
well... I have read it. And it certainly doesn't seem like fucking clownshoes to me. While I admit I'm not an economist, I think they make some very strong points. Their use of concrete examples doesn't look like hand-waving to me. I saw little jargon (hell, I could follow it, and I'm no economist) nor did I see problems of incompleteness. If anything, they were fair and balanced, pointing out the differences between systems that included and didn't include IP. I can definately see that the current world situation fits their analysis. Patents are definately grinding innovation to a halt - if that's not evident then you need to have another look.
So, you're claiming some kind of Phd?... well, if you actually have something in the way of genuine critique, rebuttle or can show factual errors in their work (other than your eloquent fucking clownshoes and oh so clever CAPTIALISED CLOWNSHOES) I'll certainly read it -- even though I'm beginning to suspect that you're just a troll...if anyone here is doing the hand-wave, it's you dude...
Copyright isn't the problem. Copyright is what allows creative people to believe thier stuff won't get pirated as soon as it is exposed to the public.
Actually copyright creates a monopoly situation which by definition increases the price and decreases the supply. Copyright is unnecessary for creators - it is necessary for middlemen (who contribute nothing to creativity) and for companies/people who want to stop creating (but keep collecting checks). It's the middlemen and the lazy that argue for more and longer protections - like the 1998 20yr extension to copyright that was retroactive. Anyone care to explain how granting longer protection terms to existing works is going to increase the amount of creativity? hint: since these works were already made, no further incentive is necessary...
If you're interested in what I mean and/or want to debate these points, read Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine first.
Economics 101: even if I have a monopoly on, say, pineapples, I can not arbitrarily set the price of pineapples to whatever the heck I want and expect people to pay for it.
Economics 102: If you have a monopoly you can charge more and/or offer less than if you were in a competative environment.
Ah, but the slashdot-esque wanker conspiracy idiot replies: "the RIAA owns the whole orchard!"
Maybe not the whole orchard - certainly a good chunk of it. More importantly they have a virtual lock on marketing (radio play, payola^WIndependant Promotors), an absolute lock on distribution of existing materials (by way of....copyright!), and a (partial) lock-out of material that isn't theirs (by way of controlling the physical distribution channel - it is difficult for an independant to get a retail store to carry their material). What this means is that if you want to play, you need to pay the RIAA man, and he dosen't give you a hell of a lot back...
if we were to accept the highly highly specious argument that there are no substitute goods for "music"
Actually there is no substitute for music, in the same way that there is no substitute for clothing. While you can certainly decide to increase and decrease your budget (yes, to zero, but then you do without) there is nothing that replaces music. You can replace Country Music with Rap Music, or Canadian Music with African Music, but books, movies and walking in the park is not a substitute for music.
It's called MARKET POWER
Regardless of how much you capitalise it, it's acutally called MONOPOLY POWER (derived I will grant you from the Oligopoly...so perhaps it's called !!!!OLIGOPOLY POWER!!!!)
It means that they have invested the time and effort to make their product worth what the market is willing to pay.
Acutally they've invested precious little time or effort into the "product" (you must be in the industry to call it "product"?). The artist, on the other hand has (possibly) devoted his/her life to this - touring, writing, doing artist type stuff... That the RIAA gets to profit while the artists don't is reprehensible. What the RIAA has put time and effort into is ensuring their continued monopoly over music distribution.
The basic economic phenomenon here has NOTHING to do with copyrights - save your juvenile rant for another day and another thread and learn some basic economics before you around proclaiming your ignorance in six foot high letters.
wow. who's ranting?
Ok then - as someone who admits they are not an economist, I will defer to a couple of people who have Phd's in economics. If you dare, click on the link in my sig and feel free to read Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. You might see things a little differently after reading it.
Then IBM would resurrect its line of x86 CPUs and sell them for $3-400. The trick with price fixing is to make sure that your price is something the market will bear (if only just), and sufficiently low that you keep the barrier to entry in your market sufficiently high.
Actually all you need is a barrier to entry: copyright gives the RIAA the barrier that ensures that no one else sells "their" songs. As long as the RIAA retains copyright, they can retain control of artist's access to the fans, and they will retain their monopoly.
record companies figured out that it's a lot more profitable to control the distribution system than it is to nurture artists. And since the companies didn't have any real competition, artists had no other place to go. Record companies controlled the promotion and marketing; only they had the ability to get lots of radio play, and get records into all the big chain store. That power put them above both the artists and the audience. They own the plantation.
She goes on to say that the internet removes those gates; but it doesn't quite do so, because of copyright...
For the Intel/AMD collusion, and the entrance of IBM with a cheaper chip, we would need to arrive at a 5th major label who was not only willing to undercut the existing majors, but could attract sufficient talent to become a major label. Others have tried - I'm not holding out hope.
It is unlimited quantity as stated. Please re-read what I wrote.
Stop paying Napster, and suddenly you've lost your entire music collection as if you never got anything at all. That makes consumers feel like they've been paying Napster all that time with nothing to show for it in the end.... It's not bad press; it's common sense reaction.
And yet the number of people leasing cars is increasing? When the payment stops, the car goes back, and no one feels hard done by.
The definition of a rental agreement is temporary usage, normally accompanied by a decrease in cost (you don't pay the entire sale price, just a part of the sale price). As an example, a common 4-yr lease, you pay for approximately 50% of the vehicle, plus interest. Napster rents you US$700,000+ (based on iTunes US$.99 price) worth of music for (assume 75 year !lifetime! membership) CDN$9000, or about 1.3% of the current value. The 'current' value of course, will go up as the catalog size increases and my calculation excluded exchange rate. Both of which only decrease the percentage of the value you need to pay...
Some other points:
Napster gives you instant access to all material. In other words, if you want to compare it with buying CDs over time, in month-1 buying CDs you only have ONE disc. Even bulk buying a year at a time only gives you a dozen CDs ~maybe 140 songs? Contrast that with 700,000+ songs, or 0.02% of the catalog size.
A CD typically costs more than CDN$10. So if you were buying a CD every month, (or more?) you are now saving money.
Neither during membership, nor afterwards are you prohibited from buying (as in owning) specific songs. While this sounds like paying twice, it's kinda like renting a video from Blockbuster, deciding you really like it and so you buy it. Lots of people do this, and no one thinks they are hard done by. Furthermore, everyone buys CDs that they listen to a couple of times and realise it's a dud. Having the chance to see which songs/CDs really stand the test of time before plunking down "purchase" money might make good sense. If the 'saving money' bit from the last point applied to you then you can use the savings to buy those CDs that you really want to keep forever.
So I guess all I'm saying (and have been saying) is that it was badly marketed, received bad press, and this was never fixed. People rent all kinds of things. This model has different advantages. This model has one disadvantage, and that's the only thing that has gotten any coverage.
Disclaimer: I am not a Napster member or user, nor am I affiliated with the company in any way. While I see a use for music distributers I hope much of this discussion becomes irrelevant by way of elimination of copyright... (see link in.sig)
Napster, AFAIK, does not allow for that portability, and instead requires a connection to the net at all times in order to use their service.
That's the whole reason they need Msft DRM - - to let the files get off the hard drive onto a trusted device. Otherwise they could just write their own DRM. With the Msft DRM, you'll be able to move the file onto a Sony MP3 player (as a Msft DRMd file) and the RIAA can feel comfy that their precious song won't get released into the wild.
When you're a captive customer, your service level goes down dramatically.
I agree, but regardless of whether you buy iTunes or Napster you're buying RIAA, so you're already a captive customer and the 'service' is already shit...:)
Have your wife check with the airline, or have the airline text msg your wife's phone to tell them when you'll be late.
While I'm pro cell usage (on a liberty basis, since I see no credible harm) I don't think calling to say your plane is late is a legit reason...hell, you (as a passenger) probably don't even get to know just how late you're going to be. 5-min? 30-min?
Personally I never pick up someone from the airport w/o checking flight status before I leave.
Government agencies acquire open source software through a variety of channels, whether it be staff downloading open source code from the internet,
If staff downloads and installs random OSS code from the net... err, OSS or not, if end-users are downloading and installing random code from the net, you don't have an OSS problem: you have a systems/network policy/configuration problem. Nuthin' to do with OSS.
or external developers providing software that includes open source components.
Sure, as opposed to them using an unlicensed component: how would you ever know? This isn't an OSS problem, it's a control over development process problem.
While this use of open source software has many benefits, it brings with it a number of legal risks not posed by proprietary or commercial software.
Yeah, what about the risks inherent in closed-source? (ask Sony for clarrification of this point) The only valid point out of this is that there are different risks. The way this was stated is pure FUD.... but just for kicks, let's see what those risks are...
These include an increased risk of exposure to faults
Ah yes, because the quality track record of closed source software is historically much better than open-source, right?
...and intellectual property claims
I personally have never heard of a single substantiated and succesful claim against an end-user of OSS software for infringement of copyright in an OSS product. Someone correct me on this one? SCO? Bueler? Anyone?
and the risk of forced disclosure of confidential code.
I don't even understand this risk...I can only assume that this is because of their lack of understanding of the GPL (and these guys are lawyers??!) and they think that if the code gets modified it must be placed back into the public. The GPL does not require you to disclose your internal modifications (note internal) and so if there is a confidentiality issue with some code (though ususally only data needs to be confidential!) then simply don't distribute that code...
Damn... this shyte is the best they can come up with?
when there are only 2000 I give a shit about? Why at the $15 monthly fee Napster charges in thirteen years I could own them all.
'cause in 13 yrs (didn't test the math, I'll take your word for it) there will be a different or at least additional 2000 songs you will give a shit about.
As I stated, sure, this won't be for everyone, some people really do listen to only (or mostly) older music, and so if you in fact stop (or sufficiently decrease) your spending habit you may come out ahead by owning it outright.
If, on the other hand, you are going to continue to buy new music as it is created and released, you may well find it less expensive to simply pay a monthly subscription for unlimited music. If you never stop buying CDs or if you never cancel your subscription then the cost is the same, but with unlimited music you get access to more content for less money.
Other option: You buy monthly subscription service, and listen to a lot of different music. A lot. You get to find out what music you really really really like. Your player keeps stats for you. Some time later (like when you're 60) you decide that you want to cancel your subscription 'cause you don't listen to the new fangled rawk any more. Now go buy the few dozen that really really really stood the test of time. Despite the fact that you said 2000, I suspect you will only keep a few dozen in true long term rotation. The rest of the stuff, you'll never listen to again.
But is this model for everyone? for the third time: no. Is it for more people than are currently using this system? Quite probably. My point was that it's just gotten bad press which was never countered (spun), and imho wasn't been well marketed to begin with.
How do you think they could stay in business and not use Microsoft's DRM?
Easy: Open Source / Open Standards, mixed with some proprietary control...
Use/start OSS encryption/DRM on a linux kernel
Start to build community around the DRM which takes up part of the development and vetting costs
Define a hardware standard (propietary) but licence manufacture to anyone who will conform
Create separate patent holding company (see notes)
Build initial player, so that there is something to market
Watch competitors innovate your player
Add own innovations plus best of competitors innovations
Watch competitors add best of your innovations to their player
Goto 6
Watch your player type outsell Apple player type
Sell music subscriptions! Lots of them.
PROFIT!
Notes:
The DRM being open-source is optional, but I suspect that there are a lot of people interested in crypto that don't get a chance to play with it. There will be interested people just for the cool factor.
The only right you don't give away is the right to sell music for this player. By some mechanism (hardware control?) you ensure that only your service can add DRM music to this player. Add (like iTunes) all the non-DRMd files you want...
The reason your family of players will eventually outsell the iPod is because they will eventually be cooler. The competition amongst your licensees will generate better and better players. Features will be added, layout will be updated. Different variations and prices will also appeal to different people, further driving sales.
The hardware license should disallow individual patents or legal protections on innovations to the player. All such patents are taken by the holding company which expressly grants all makers of the player (the licensees) use of all of the innovations (most importantly, the building up of, or improving of the previous innovations.
Remember, the goal is to (through competition) sell more than Apple, not more than other licensees.
You'd think that by now Apple would have learned that monopoloies always eventually die... It is competition that drives innovation, not monopoly. And this little scheme generates competition.
This is just a "No IP within an IP framework" (kinda like GPL is a no-copyright, within a copyright framework).
The idea is not mine (or even new!), but it is inspired by the book I just read (linked in my.sig)
They're trying to market it like it's iTunes, but it's really more like XM Radio without the nifty receiver
...but where you get to be the DJ (or have to be the DJ, depending on your point of view). To those that want to listen to a specific song at a specific time being able to demand that song from your player is what is required: can't do that with XM.
I've read a number of people who like the idea of 'renting' and maintain that they don't listen to their archive - I for one *rarely* dip into my archive.
I think the problem with 'renting' is that it's gotten bad press, and/or was badly spun/sold. The articles I read all talked only about the negatives of not owning the music, when really it's a trade: Given a fixed monthly expense choose unlimited quantity over a limited duration vs limited quantity over an unlimited duration... and the limited duration only applies if you stop the monthly expense. I suspect that if people did the math they would find that they could access more music for less money with a rent scheme; they're just locked into a specific vendor forever...but since the music cartel is really a single entity anyways, does it really matter?
People 'rent' all kinds of things: cars (lease new one every 4-yrs), cable modem, hot-water tank, beer. No one gets upset about 'renting' these because they see the value in getting a new one - and such is the value in 'renting' music. Sure it's not for everyone, but I suspect more people might have tried it if the marketing and media response would have been better.
you'll be trampled all over by the other companies who are doing the exact same thing but can do so more cheaply as they didn't have to R&D a whole new DRM mechanism.
Apple wrote their own DRM (or at least bought exclusive rights).
Apple isn't doing anything unique - selling music as a digital file isn't remotely their idea.
So why would the expense of rolling their own hurt Napster more than it does/did Apple? Especially if they are complaining that the current DRM system "has been less than brilliant". If the "other companies" tie their wagons to a losing horse (read less than brilliant) they might* get in cheaper, but they still won't win.
*...and while the article doesn't say so, I can only assume that M$ is charging some kind of fee to use their DRM. Over a long period, this may pay for the custom code.
The frist question I have is why it needs to be either/or.
With 14 PCs there is the possibility of 10-Win + 4-Lin or some such combination. Better yet, dual-boot them all.
The bottom line: it's education. Kids should be given the opportunity to learn as much about the computing world as they can by having exposure to all the technology available.
Maybe only 10-12 need to be set up with permanent installs... let the kids mess with various distros and other random OSs like BeOS...
Slashdot Mirror
I don't specifically have answers as to what to do, but I have heard of non-jail-type-stuff like where criminals meet with their victims and such. While I don't know if it's effective, or if there are better solutions, I just think we're crazy to keep going down this lock-people-up path, when the results are so obviously lacking...
*I define a working corrections system not as punishment system - we can do that easily enough with a big stick, applied frequently and liberally. I am, however interested in making people into contributing members of society, so they add value instead of chewing up resources...
So! The point was that depending on how much or how little you pick (in total!) from both columns it may well have been cheaper to simply write an ERP that exactly matches your current business and be done with it...
Compiere
two points:
the "bunch of uneducated ragheads" are willing (in fact honored) to die for their cause: Are you? Is the average american?
The current 'losing' situation isn't so much a loss as a failure to win - i.e. stalemate. Vietnam changed how war is fought. And unless you are willing to commit genocide, the US will never win a war in the way that the (for example) 1st and 2nd world wars were 'won' (i.e.: the other side signed surrender after sustaining sufficient losses.) Vietnam changed the rules of battle, and your "bunch of uneducated ragheads" are never going to sign surrender... specifically because some well educated puppet masters keep pulling their strings.
It is always legal for me to climb my own fence.
An officer seeing someone climbing a fence can request that you prove your identity; and upon determining that the property is yours can wander on his merry way. There is no question from the officer that you might have come into possession of this fence illegally!
So, by analogy, if I move money from my bank account to my ABC Credit Card they can easily determine that I'm the owner of both accounts. Since moving my money between my accounts is not illegal they can fsk! right off. And note that all this can be done in milliseconds, requires no holds and requires no one to actually review the transaction.
The best part is that since the bank keeps a record of this transaction it's always up for review if they have a real reason to look at your finances.
This (again!) reminds me of the whole people who encrypt their data must be hiding something from the government, and so they must be criminals argument again...
Besides all this, mass monitoring isn't a very good way to go...
Serious organised criminals won't ever get caught because
And we waste tax dollars enforcing this? I'm curious just how often the work results in finding real illigal activity, where this was the only way they were going to get caught?
Well ... it boggles mine that you've actually read their paper and don't agree with it: especially if this
article is the best critique of it you could find. If their theory is fucking clownshoes there should be
ample contrary evidence. And the reason doctrine of first sale works is because of scarcity. At the end of the
day, everyone is constrained by resources. The argument is that there is a cost in copying something, and if
the cost of simply buying it is greater than the (perceived) cost of copying then it will be sold. Couple
examples: there is a growing number of people who buy from iTunes, not because it's cheaper than downloading
fom p2p, and not because it's legal, but because it's easier. They would rather simply go to a web-site, pay
the buck and get the song. Second example: I just downloaded, printed and bound Against Intellectual
Monopoly and decided that when the final version became available I'd buy it rather than do that
again...what a pain in the ass...
But regardles, let's see what Romer says:
So even Romer thinks the current system is somestimes too much protection. Let's get to his arguments:
This is patently false and somewhat alarmist.
First of all, passing any given pill through a machine that tells you what is in it, doesn't tell you how it was made. The formula for Coca Cola is, what? like a hundered years old, and survives without exact copy despite not being protected by any law.
Secondly, this process does take time and money, during which time the original inventor is busy selling their drug.
Thirdly, the companies that want to simply imitate (as opposed to innovate) will never make siginificant impact. They also have limited resources, and are going to go after the successful drugs, correct? Well, that means that they have to wait to see which drugs are selling well before they can start to perform their analysis. This does two things: it further increases the time during which the original inventor has a monopoly, and it means that they already made money -- it was a high selling innovation (in this case drug). They quote estimates between 2-5 years as the lead time that a drug company will have by simply using trade secret.
So from the next paragraph where Romer says "this conclusion is unrealistic if everyone who buys a pill can copy it." is false, I can't copy the pill, no matter how many I buy: I lack the chemistry education and the machines necessary to do this. So we're talking about scarcity...
Next:
When I buy a CD, it don't assume the plastic is worth $10-$20... so what's his point? If the formula to a drug is worth millions, don't sell it on a piece of paper for the value of the paper...sell it as a pill. Going back to music, the 'cost' of downloading is essentially zero. Yet Apple has still sold a billion songs
So, you're claiming some kind of Phd?
If you're interested in what I mean and/or want to debate these points, read Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine first.
Ok then - as someone who admits they are not an economist, I will defer to a couple of people who have Phd's in economics. If you dare, click on the link in my sig and feel free to read Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine. You might see things a little differently after reading it.
Courtney Love said:
She goes on to say that the internet removes those gates; but it doesn't quite do so, because of copyright...For the Intel/AMD collusion, and the entrance of IBM with a cheaper chip, we would need to arrive at a 5th major label who was not only willing to undercut the existing majors, but could attract sufficient talent to become a major label. Others have tried - I'm not holding out hope.
The definition of a rental agreement is temporary usage, normally accompanied by a decrease in cost (you don't pay the entire sale price, just a part of the sale price). As an example, a common 4-yr lease, you pay for approximately 50% of the vehicle, plus interest. Napster rents you US$700,000+ (based on iTunes US$.99 price) worth of music for (assume 75 year !lifetime! membership) CDN$9000, or about 1.3% of the current value. The 'current' value of course, will go up as the catalog size increases and my calculation excluded exchange rate. Both of which only decrease the percentage of the value you need to pay...
Some other points:
So I guess all I'm saying (and have been saying) is that it was badly marketed, received bad press, and this was never fixed. People rent all kinds of things. This model has different advantages. This model has one disadvantage, and that's the only thing that has gotten any coverage.
Disclaimer: I am not a Napster member or user, nor am I affiliated with the company in any way. While I see a use for music distributers I hope much of this discussion becomes irrelevant by way of elimination of copyright ... (see link in .sig)
/. : Expressing Opinions by Moderating instead of Typing since 1995 :)
While I'm pro cell usage (on a liberty basis, since I see no credible harm) I don't think calling to say your plane is late is a legit reason...hell, you (as a passenger) probably don't even get to know just how late you're going to be. 5-min? 30-min?
Personally I never pick up someone from the airport w/o checking flight status before I leave.
Damn ... this shyte is the best they can come up with?
As I stated, sure, this won't be for everyone, some people really do listen to only (or mostly) older music, and so if you in fact stop (or sufficiently decrease) your spending habit you may come out ahead by owning it outright.
If, on the other hand, you are going to continue to buy new music as it is created and released, you may well find it less expensive to simply pay a monthly subscription for unlimited music. If you never stop buying CDs or if you never cancel your subscription then the cost is the same, but with unlimited music you get access to more content for less money.
Other option: You buy monthly subscription service, and listen to a lot of different music. A lot. You get to find out what music you really really really like. Your player keeps stats for you. Some time later (like when you're 60) you decide that you want to cancel your subscription 'cause you don't listen to the new fangled rawk any more. Now go buy the few dozen that really really really stood the test of time. Despite the fact that you said 2000, I suspect you will only keep a few dozen in true long term rotation. The rest of the stuff, you'll never listen to again.
But is this model for everyone? for the third time: no. Is it for more people than are currently using this system? Quite probably. My point was that it's just gotten bad press which was never countered (spun), and imho wasn't been well marketed to begin with.
Notes:
The DRM being open-source is optional, but I suspect that there are a lot of people interested in crypto that don't get a chance to play with it. There will be interested people just for the cool factor.
The only right you don't give away is the right to sell music for this player. By some mechanism (hardware control?) you ensure that only your service can add DRM music to this player. Add (like iTunes) all the non-DRMd files you want...
The reason your family of players will eventually outsell the iPod is because they will eventually be cooler. The competition amongst your licensees will generate better and better players. Features will be added, layout will be updated. Different variations and prices will also appeal to different people, further driving sales.
The hardware license should disallow individual patents or legal protections on innovations to the player. All such patents are taken by the holding company which expressly grants all makers of the player (the licensees) use of all of the innovations (most importantly, the building up of, or improving of the previous innovations.
Remember, the goal is to (through competition) sell more than Apple, not more than other licensees.
You'd think that by now Apple would have learned that monopoloies always eventually die... It is competition that drives innovation, not monopoly. And this little scheme generates competition.
This is just a "No IP within an IP framework" (kinda like GPL is a no-copyright, within a copyright framework). .sig)
The idea is not mine (or even new!), but it is inspired by the book I just read (linked in my
I've read a number of people who like the idea of 'renting' and maintain that they don't listen to their archive - I for one *rarely* dip into my archive.
I think the problem with 'renting' is that it's gotten bad press, and/or was badly spun/sold. The articles I read all talked only about the negatives of not owning the music, when really it's a trade: Given a fixed monthly expense choose unlimited quantity over a limited duration vs limited quantity over an unlimited duration... and the limited duration only applies if you stop the monthly expense. I suspect that if people did the math they would find that they could access more music for less money with a rent scheme; they're just locked into a specific vendor forever...but since the music cartel is really a single entity anyways, does it really matter?
People 'rent' all kinds of things: cars (lease new one every 4-yrs), cable modem, hot-water tank, beer. No one gets upset about 'renting' these because they see the value in getting a new one - and such is the value in 'renting' music. Sure it's not for everyone, but I suspect more people might have tried it if the marketing and media response would have been better.
Apple isn't doing anything unique - selling music as a digital file isn't remotely their idea.
So why would the expense of rolling their own hurt Napster more than it does/did Apple? Especially if they are complaining that the current DRM system "has been less than brilliant". If the "other companies" tie their wagons to a losing horse (read less than brilliant) they might* get in cheaper, but they still won't win.
* ...and while the article doesn't say so, I can only assume that M$ is charging some kind of fee to use their DRM. Over a long period, this may pay for the custom code.
With 14 PCs there is the possibility of 10-Win + 4-Lin or some such combination. Better yet, dual-boot them all. Maybe only 10-12 need to be set up with permanent installs